In the case of the AK47 or a hand gun, it is, in Canada you to steal one. For guns in general, no, buying a rifle is just the same here as there.

It states at the bottom that it excludes Mexico. Any reason why, other than to avoid relegating the US to 2nd place!

Mexico would be very high, even though they do ban guns there. The drug barrons tends to run the areas they live in so I believe.

He is not fundamentalist. He is militant. There is a big difference.

I noticed that but still agree that the US is ridiculously high on the list.....there are a few other countries not mentioned which are a lot higher than US as well such as South Africa and Brazil. The Grauniad did a comprehensive list earlier in the year

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...hip-world-list the most amazing number is in the right hand column though which states total number of civilian held firearms......USA 270 million ..... and probably the reason why any change in legislation is completely doomed

if you took any notice of this list though, a holiday somewhere in the Caribbean would not be high on your priorities.

Looking at your list, I hadn't thought of any of the major gun death countries except for the US) as places I'd be looking to visit anyway. There also needs to be factored in, what percentage of those are foreign visitors against how many locals are killed. I consider the US a separate case, as some parts of the US seem much safer than others, though one really shouldn't generalise.

Maybe this helps illustrate the differences between an attack by someone with a knife and someone with a gun.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8684301.stm

Further down the page it says

On Wednesday, seven children thought to be under the age of six and two adults were hacked to death at a kindergarten near Hanzhong city in Shaanxi province. The attacker later killed himself, Xinhua reported.

Point being?

I think it takes more emotion to kill up close and personal with a bladed weapon than it does with a firearm. I also think that anybody given the right motivation (anger, fear, or self-preservation) can manage the four to five pounds per square inch pressure it takes to pull a trigger and kill someone else, but less peole would do the same with a knife in my opinion.

I think he could be construed as either. And there's only really a big difference if you attach fundamentalism to theological beliefs (as some think, but not all). Anyway, he's bloody irritating (and I say so as an atheist).

He is irritating - but he irritates people that are even more irritating so that makes him ok by me.

I certainly wouldn't use the word fundamentalist to describe any atheist, no matter how radical and annoying they are, simply because it's a rhetorical device used by religionists to control the narrative about what atheism is. It allows them to bring the debate back to their level using false equivalence (i.e. atheism is 'just another belief system' when it's no such thing).

Not difficult to follow your thread there. Well, sorry you feel that way Sir. I don't set out to irritate just to express my views / help others if I can. Everyone has an opinion on the forum, that's what makes it a good place to hang out.

Eh? It's a device used to describe extreme religious belief not atheism on the whole. I think many are turning it back around on to people like Dawkins, especially when he goes into primary schools preaching as to the non-existence of god. Even many atheists are doing so.

Atheism is about belief just as much religion. It all depends on what you believe in.

It's still the wrong term to use.

You see, you are doing it again (it's almost like you are now taking the piss). Equating atheism with religion by suggesting that it contains the same amount of belief and using words like preaching. Same amount of belief? Not at all. "Belief" in science, logic, rational thinking, and evidence is really not the same as "belief" in miracles, angels, heaven and hell. This is the problem with using words like this (look at how some of them have twisted the meaning of the word "theory")

The point I was making (and no I'm not taking the piss - whatever you might want to think) is that Dawkins ACTS like a fundamentalist Christian and gives atheists a bad name. He should simply fall back on the fact that the burden on proof lies with those that believe in God. But he doesn't. Like some kind of modern day Savonarola he goes around like a rabid preacher from a pulpit trying to prove otherwise. He puts ads on buses that are blatantly stupid ("There probably is no God, so stop worrying and get on with life" Probably?? I thought he was more firm than that!? That message was lost ...) and even goes into Primary schools giving young kids a blast too. Personally, I thought Hitchens was altogether more classy.

I quite understand that science and religion have different belief systems, that's not what I was saying. But yes, you're right that 'belief' totally means different things to theists and atheists. I agree with you.

Anyway, I guess this thread was never about Dawkins so I apologize for taking us down there!